[Good space policy requires] smarter regulation to encourage
entrepreneurship and accept risk. For instance, current law
prevents the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Space
Transportation (FAA-AST) from regulating the safety of passengers
aboard spacecraft; it is constrained to regulating only those
issues that affect uninvolved third parties.

The hand of the state has rested lightly on the space industry
so far, thanks to that 2004 law, which imposed an eight-year
moratorium on regulation. The view at the time was that until
private space passenger vehicles actually took flight, the industry
was too poorly understood to intelligently regulate. The moratorium
is about to expire, and the House is willing to extend it to cover
another eight years after flights begin. But the Senate is
resisting the extension, demanding stricter regulation while
simultaneously seeking to cut the budget of the FAA-AST. If the
stalemate continues, the industry could wind up regulated out of
existence before it even gets off the ground.

This FAA policy was hard won and may now be in jeopardy if
politicians get in the mood to Do Something.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

It's terrible, of course, but it was a test flight. People are
going to get hurt doing these things. And rockets exploding? Well,
NASA knows all about blowing up rockets and spacecraft. Even with
people in them.

This FAA policy was hard won and may now be in jeopardy if
politicians get in the mood to Do Something.

Well, there's an election coming up and usually space regulation
is not an issue that is going to drive people to the polls. So as
unfortunate as this accident is, it may have happened at a time
when politicians are not interested in Doing Something, at least
not about it.

This sucks totally and completely, but I think it's better that
it happened very early on during the testing phase and not way down
the road during the "taking a dozen people at a time into space"
phase.

What if the statists got wind of the fact that the first flight
has two seats reserved for the Koch brothers? I bet they would
completely lay off regulations in the hope that Teh Evul would be
blown up.

Risk is part of innovation, and we should let people
continue to put their lives on the line if they do so with full
understanding of those risks.

Just peruse a bit around Wikipedia and count the number of people
killed while testing planes and spacecraft for the Government, and
then ask some anti-capitalism nitwit why is the private sector held
on a much higher standard than the government itself when it comes
to risk-taking.

Let us remember that when Orville Wright was showing his Flyer
airplane at Fort Myers on September 3, 1908, with passenger Army
Lieutenant Thomas Selfridge, the airplane had a malfunction and
plunged on to the earth, killing Selfridge and severely wounding
Orville. This happened despite the numerous times the Wrights had
flown their machines and improved their flyability. Shit happens.
But the Wrights achieved their feat with NO government backing of
any kind.

Let us also remember that the government sponsored project for
the first heavier-than-air machine, designed by Samuel Pierpoint
Langley, ended as an unmitigated disaster.

Rocket engins exploded in the past and will exsplode in
future.
There is no way to aviod such failures with such high pressures,
temperatures and vibrations. Flying on rocket powered ships will
always remain very risky.